Re: [Ietf-languages] Proposal for variant language subtags for Pe̍h-ōe-jī romanization for Minnan (nan)

[Hugh Paterson III <[e-mail]>]

With regards to POJ, I was reading the english wikipedia article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%CC%8Dh-%C5%8De-j%C4%AB and the following
is a quote:

> Versions of *pe̍h-ōe-jī* have been devised for other Southern Chinese
varieties <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_Chinese>, including
Hakka <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakka_Chinese> and Teochew Southern Min
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teochew_dialect>. Other related scripts
include *Pha̍k-oa-chhi* for Gan <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gan_Chinese>
, *Pha̍k-fa-sṳ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pha%CC%8Dk-fa-s%E1%B9%B3>*
 for Hakka <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakka_Chinese>, *Bǽh-oe-tu
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Romanized>* for Hainanese
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainanese>, *Bàng-uâ-cê
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foochow_Romanized>* for Fuzhou
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzhou_dialect>, *Pe̍h-ūe-jī
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%CC%8Dh-%C5%ABe-j%C4%AB>* for Teochew
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teochew_dialect>, *Gṳ̿ing-nǎing Lô̤-mǎ-cī
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kienning_Colloquial_Romanized>* for Northern
Min <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Min>, and *Hing-hua̍ báⁿ-uā-ci̍
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinghwa_Romanized>* for Pu-Xian Min
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pu-Xian_Min>.

I get the feeling that the English Wikipedia article is not well
articulated in the sense that our community would use terminology.
For example, I take issue with their use of the word "script". But can any
one clarify for me if the current proposal would cover the other
romanization schemes listed for these other languages. My suspicion is that
it won't but the article says "Versions of *pe̍h-ōe-jī* " so I wanted to
make sure that we (but I mean mostly me) were clear here that this proposed
sb-tag only applies to the ISO 639-3 tag [nan]. Other sub-tags would need
to be proposed for other romanization schemes applied to other languages. I
wanted to be clear here that this sub-tag is not a "class" or "family" of
romanization schemes which may have a common origin. (I think we have
already hashed out the language-internal variation/diachronic versioning of
POJ as applied to [nan]).

Kind Regards,
- Hugh

On Mon, Jan 29, 2024 at 12:55 AM Winston Sung <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> > doesn't that mean there will be two entries for "nan-Latn"
>
> No. It is used as the prefix "nan-Latn-*", so they would become "
> nan-Latn-pehoeji", "nan-Latn-tailo".
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>